Talk:Metaxalone

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Metaxalone.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

"Involves the Cytochrome P450 System"

I have two topics here, really. The first actually involves the article and is that "involves the cytochrome p450 system" is a sort of non-statement; someone pulled a common thread from the horrifying legalese from the patent, but patents are as close to the exact opposite of clearly stated information as you can get without being randomly generated Markov Chain spam. I'm updating it to say that it's a substrate of CYP1A2 and CYP2C19, which isn't much more information dense but provides something useful. That leads to the second topic:

This is the first time I've read a pharmaceutical patent, and wow... is this really how they're done?:

In another embodiment, the method comprises obtaining metaxalone from a container providing information that metaxalone affects activity of a cytochrome p450 isozyme; that administration of metaxalone with a substance can affect the plasma concentration, bioavailability, safety, efficacy, or a combination comprising at least one of the foregoing of metaxalone or the substance; and that any effect on the plasma concentration, bioavailability, safety, efficacy, or a combination comprising at least one of the foregoing of metaxalone or the substance can vary with administration of metaxalone with or without food.

Really? The patent actually covers me removing a pill from a container with information included? Should patents be used as a source here? Especially in the case of this drug they seem to be patenting a long, drawn out chain of BS labeling updates to retain patent on the drug perpetually... it was FDA approved since 1968 but it doesn't appear to have had a generic version until 2008... documents drawn up to milk consumers for all they're worth and defeat the spirit (although sadly not the reality) of the patent system don't have much place as information. I'd suggest that if patents are used as sources maybe it shouldn't be 4 of the godawful things defining label changes when the current version of the label (also used as a reference) provides all the same information with as much to back it as the patent (i.e. the faith that the manufacturer wasn't flat-out making up test results).

I've removed a couple of patent refs in the process of removing "the patient is informed" text from the pharmacokinetics section, although that section could use info on metabolic actives and primary inactives if someone knows where to dig them up, and that source would probably also eliminate the need to reference the P450 label update patent. Just something to ponder. I'm going to go wash down a beer with another beer and attempt to forget reading the patents. If only I had a metaxalone prescription...

A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there 4.5 years later. I'm just now exploring this section for ascribing myself with a doctor the same information and thought that document was wild. I found other sources direct from Pfizer, NIH, etc, and all of them echo that Metaxalone "does not significantly inhibit," and "significantly induce," with that little note in vitro. Seems hard data on what exact enzymes in adults either hasn't really been explored, or it's so insignificant or wavering between each adult they simply can't find conclusive numerical data or aren't concerned because of the insignificance of it and already know/have published the warnings for exactly what not to take alongside it.

[1]https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/fda/fdaDrugXsl.cfm?setid=0aff6dda-b9fd-4f01-85b2-eb3097b760b0&type=display

[2]https://www.pfizermedicalinformation.com/patient/skelaxin/clinical-pharmacology Matteodavidking (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monoamine oxidase inhibition as a proposed mechanism of action

There are several articles on PubMed that have claimed to assay metaxalone as an inhibitor of monoamine oxidase, with selectivity towards MAO-B at low doses and losing its selectivity at higher doses. The varying methods at which the different publications use to assay metaxalone for MAOI activity lead me to believe that this proposed mechanism of action does indeed apply to metaxalone; whether or not this property is solely responsible for its myorelaxant/general CNS depressant action remains to be seen. 206.127.33.71 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]